Congratulations! I, too, am very glad that this worked out so well for you. I am also pleased that you were able to avoid the pressure on this thread to escalate the situation, and were confident enough in yourself to follow the advice you felt was best.

I'm not sure what to make of that statistic. I've read many times that when men do push for custody, they tend to win. This could be pure sexism, I suppose. But it doesn't make sense, since "regular" sexism says the children belong with the mother, so I doubt that's the issue. My guess is that very few men ever fight for custody, since most people, including parents, think the kids should be with their mother. So that would mean that the ones who DO fight for custody, more often than not, may have a legitimate reason to, as in, the mom may have major issues. Of course, sometimes they fight for it just because they both want the kids, or other times because the man wants to torture the woman, but I suspect those numbers are small.

So I guess I'm saying don't try and draw too many conclusions from that statistic in terms of how your own case may go. It may be based on unusual circumstances, so it may have no bearing at all in a more normal custody situation.

I think it has something to do with how many men just walk away and don't put much effort into parenting, when a guy says he wants to be involved, and puts out some effort, even if it is less than the mom in the situation, compared the the average dad, he looks good, but mothers are much more subject to scrutiny, it is really hard to look like a good mom

It also has to do with the gender bias within the system -- from the mediators to the lawyers and judges, the system is run predominately by men. Therefore, when men go to court, they benefit from the "good old boy's" club.

When I went to court for custody, the system was very biased against me and I was surrounded by men throughout the process. My ex was given a slight edge just by being a man. I could tell by the deference provided to him, but not me.

For example, my job relocation was questioned, even though it was within the boundaries previously set (the child had to live within 60 miles of the courthouse). The judge told me to move back and take part time work (as a substitute teacher). Never mind the the fact that Ex did not pay child support or provide health insurance and my new job as a full-time teacher gave me a good paycheck and insurance for DD. The judge would never had said that to a man.

It also has to do with the gender bias within the system -- from the mediators to the lawyers and judges, the system is run predominately by men. Therefore, when men go to court, they benefit from the "good old boy's" club.

When I went to court for custody, the system was very biased against me and I was surrounded by men throughout the process. My ex was given a slight edge just by being a man. I could tell by the deference provided to him, but not me.

For example, my job relocation was questioned, even though it was within the boundaries previously set (the child had to live within 60 miles of the courthouse). The judge told me to move back and take part time work (as a substitute teacher). Never mind the the fact that Ex did not pay child support or provide health insurance and my new job as a full-time teacher gave me a good paycheck and insurance for DD. The judge would never had said that to a man.

Wow, that's awful! Of course they wouldn't say that to a guy!

Yes, I can see your point (and the previous one as well). I bet there are several factors involved in that custody statistic.